http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-Ariz., makes a lot of political hay portraying himself
as the presidential candidate for campaign finance reform and against
influence-peddling. He's for restrictions on the "soft money" millions that
flow into the campaign coffers of the Republican and Democratic parties from
corporations, labor unions and private individuals. Before becoming
bamboozled by McCain's message, we might stop to ask: Are political
contributions really the problem?

Why do corporations, unions and other interest groups fork over millions of
dollars to political campaigns? If you think it's because these groups are
simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who just love participation in
the political process, you probably also believe that storks deliver babies,
and there really is an Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

A better explanation is that congressmen are in the favor-granting
business. The greater the growth of government control over businesses,
property and employment, the greater is the value of being able to influence
Congress. Two distinguished George Mason University economists, Professors
James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, who've done pioneering work in political
economy, use the unlikely term "rent-seeking" to describe what goes on in
Washington.

Rent-seeking refers to the use of government as a means to acquire greater
wealth by gaining monopoly power or income transfers. Rent-seeking abounds.

U.S. automakers and their unions get Congress to enact quotas and tariffs on
foreign imports. Dairymen and sugar producers seek import restrictions on
dairy products and sugar. Labor unions seek minimum-wage laws and other
legislation that eliminates competition. When Congress grants these favors,
the recipients see increased profits and wages that come at the expense of
other Americans.

Using Congress is one way to restrict competition. Using mob violence a la
Al Capone is another. But why use violence and risk imprisonment or death
when the same result can be obtained with campaign contributions? For
example, if Archer Daniels Midland's CEO Dwayne Andreas used goons and
violence to stop people from buying sugar from Caribbean producers so he
could sell more corn syrup, he'd wind up in jail. If he makes big campaign
contributions, he gets the same result, without risking imprisonment.
Congress just enacts quotas and tariffs.

Rent-seeking is inefficient. Import restraints on Japanese cars during the
1980s cost American car buyers about $4.3 billion. That's about $160,000 per
year for each job saved in Detroit. It would have been cheaper to allow the
imports and have Congress give each laid-off auto worker $60,000 a year so
they could buy a vacation residence in Florida. But to have such an open and
above-board wealth transfer would have been politically impossible.

Some campaign contributions represent extortion. It's the bad cop-good cop
sham. One congressman tells a CEO that another congressman has a bill
pending that's going to be very costly to his company. It might be
environmental or worker-safety regulations, import restrictions, etc. The
congressman tells the CEO that a fat campaign contribution will help defeat
the bill. That's what Buchanan and Tullock might call "rent avoidance."

You say, "OK, Williams, what can be done?"

I say: Forget about campaign finance reform. If Congress did only what it's
constitutionally authorized to do, influence-peddling would be a non-issue
because Congress wouldn't have the power to grant favors. It might also help
if we had a law that read: Whatever Congress does for one American it must
do for all Americans. If Congress pays one American not to raise pigs, every
American not raising pigs should also receive payments.

I fear that neither measure would get American support, so we deserve the
rotten government we're
getting.